DOCSLIB.ORG

Dickson V. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dickson V. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation COURT OF APPEAL OF YUKON Citation: Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2021 YKCA 5 Date: 20210721 Docket: 20-YU872 Between: Cindy Dickson Appellant/ Respondent on Cross Appeal (Petitioner) And Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Respondent/ Appellant on Cross Appeal (Respondent) And Government of Yukon, Attorney General of Canada, Carcross/Tagish First Nation, Council of Yukon First Nations, Métis Nation of Ontario, and Teslin Tlingit Council Intervenors Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of Yukon, dated June 8, 2020 (Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2020 YKSC 22, Whitehorse Docket 18-AP012). Counsel for the Appellant E.A.B. Gilbride (via videoconference): H. Mann Counsel for the Respondent E.R.S. Sigurdson (via videoconference): K. Statnyk K.M. Robertson Counsel for the Intervenor, I.H. Fraser Government of Yukon K. Mercier (via videoconference): Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Page 2 Counsel for the Intervenor, M. Anderson-Lindsay Attorney General of Canada S. McCallum Rougerie (via videoconference): Counsel for the Intervenor, M.E. Turpel-Lafond Carcross/Tagish First Nation G. Gardiner (via videoconference): E.G.G.F. Linklater Counsel for the Intervenor, J.M. Coady, Q.C. Council of Yukon First Nations T.M. Shoranick (via videoconference): Counsel for the Intervenor, J. Madden Métis Nation of Ontario A.J. Winterburn (via videoconference): Counsel for the Intervenor, K. Blomfield Teslin Tlingit Council J.R. Nicholls (via videoconference): Place and Date of Hearing: Whitehorse, Yukon May 18–20, 2021 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia July 21, 2021 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury Concurred in by: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman Concurring Reasons (Dissenting in part) by: (p. 81, para. 166) The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Page 3 Summary: The Vuntut Gwitchin form a small first nation (“VGFN”) located on territory in the far north of Yukon. It was one of 11 first nations who negotiated and finalized self-government arrangements with Canada and Yukon over 20 years, culminating in an “Umbrella Agreement” in 1992. In accordance with the VGFN’s Final Agreement (which is a treaty for purposes of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982) and Self-Government Agreement signed in 1993, the VGFN adopted a Constitution that provides for personal rights and freedoms, including equality rights, very similar to those contained in the (Canadian) Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in this case only a claim under the Charter was addressed by the court below. The Constitution also contained a requirement (the “Residency Requirement”) that any member of the VGFN’s Council must reside on the “Settlement Land” — effectively in Old Crow, the main community there. Later, this Requirement was revised such that any person elected to Council (which consists of four members) would have to take up residence on the Settlement Land within 14 days of being elected. The appellant is a member of the VGFN and, like many other members, resides in Whitehorse (800 km south of Old Crow.) She has a job there and her son needs to be near a full-service hospital. The appellant wanted to run for election to Council, but was precluded from doing so by the Residency Requirement. Relying on Corbiere (SCC 1999), she sued in the Supreme Court of Yukon for a declaration that the Requirement was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter, could not be justified under s. 1 thereof, and was therefore of no force or effect. The chambers judge below ruled that the Charter applies to the Residency Requirement, subject to the deletion of a 14-day time limitation. He found that the Requirement, without the time limitation, did not infringe the appellant’s rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter; and in the alternative, that s. 25 of the Charter applied to ‘shield’ the Residency Requirement from being abridged by the assertion of personal rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. At the same time, he found the 14-day limitation did infringe the appellant’s equality rights and was not saved under s. 1. He declared the time limitation invalid and of no force or effect, subject to an 18-month suspension to permit the VGFN to review the Residency Requirement. On appeal, C.A. found that: 1. The chambers judge did not err in proceeding on the basis that the Residency Requirement is a “law” within the meaning of s. 32 of the Charter such that the Charter applies to the Requirement; 2. Subject to possible justification under s. 1 of the Charter, the Requirement infringed the appellant’s equality rights under s. 15(1) even though it was obviously not intended to perpetuate disadvantage or stereotyping. Its effect was to make a distinction based on the appellant’s place of residence, requiring her to choose between participating in the VGFN’s council election on one hand and remaining in Whitehorse on the other. Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Page 4 3. The chambers judge did not err in finding that s. 25 of the Charter ‘shielded’ the VGFN’s right to adopt the Residency Requirement, including the words “within 14 days”. The evidence established that the VGFN’s traditional mode of choosing its leaders was a distinctive and significant part of its culture and was a right that ‘pertains to’ the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. In the circumstances, to apply s. 15(1) would impermissibly derogate from the VGFN’s right to govern themselves in accordance with their own particular values and traditions. 4. It would not be appropriate at this point to suggest any general rule to the effect that s. 25 should be considered and applied only after a court has determined that a Charter right or freedom has been breached and can or cannot be justified; and 5. Given the foregoing, the chambers judge erred in failing to find that the 14-day time limitation would also have been shielded by s. 25. Accordingly, he had erred in severing those words as infringing the appellant’s rights under s. 15(1). In the result, the C.A. allowed the appeal and cross appeal and dismissed the appellant’s petition. Frankel J.A. (dissenting in part) agreed that the Residency Requirement is valid for the reasons given by the majority. However, he did not agree with the majority’s disposition of appellant’s appeal. In his view, that appeal should be dismissed, not allowed. Further, he did not agree that this court’s order should contain declarations. Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Page 5 OVERVIEW................................................................................................................ 7 THE VUNTUT GWITCHIN FIRST NATION ............................................................... 9 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 10 THE AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................... 11 The Final Agreement ............................................................................................ 12 The Self-Government Agreement (“SGA”) ........................................................... 14 The Constitution ................................................................................................... 15 THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT ........................................................................ 19 MS. DICKSON ......................................................................................................... 22 THE CHAMBERS JUDGE’S ANALYSIS ................................................................ 24 A Political Question? ............................................................................................ 24 Applicability of s. 15 of the Charter ....................................................................... 25 Did the Residency Requirement Infringe Ms. Dickson’s Equality Rights Under s. 15? ................................................................................................................... 26 The 14-Day Limitation .......................................................................................... 31 Application of s. 25 of the Charter ........................................................................ 31 ON APPEAL ............................................................................................................ 38 Interpretation ........................................................................................................ 40 Did the Chambers Judge Err in Finding that the Residency Requirement is a “Law” to which the Charter Applies? ............................................................................... 43 Did the Chambers Judge Err in Finding that the Residency Requirement did not Constitute an Infringement of Ms. Dickson’s Rights under s. 15(1)? .................... 51 Corbiere ............................................................................................................ 54 Section 1 ........................................................................................................... 57 Does s. 25 of the Charter ‘Shield’ the Residency Requirement? .......................... 60 Kapp ................................................................................................................. 60 Other Authorities ............................................................................................... 64 Academic Comment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • First Nations & Transboundary Claimants
    How to Contact Yukon First Nations & Transboundary Claimants Carcross/Tagish First Nation Kaska Ta’an Kwäch’än Council Box 130 Liard First Nation 117 Industrial Road Carcross, YT Y0B 1B0 Box 328 Whitehorse, YT Y1A 2T8 Location: Turn off Klondike Hwy at Watson Lake, YT Y0A 1C0 Tel (867) 668-3613 south end of bridge Location: On Campbell Hwy, across Fax (867) 667-4295 Tel (867) 821-4251 from high school/Yukon College Tel (867) 821-8216 – Lands Admin. Tel (867) 536-5200 – Administration Teslin Tlingit Council Fax (867) 821-4802 Tel (867) 536-2912 – Land Claims Fax (867) 536-2109 Box 133 Teslin, YT Y0A 1B0 Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Ross River Dena Council Location: On southwest side of General Delivery Alaska Highway Box 5309 Ross River, YT Y0B 1S0 Tel (867) 390-2532 – Administration Haines Junction, YT Y0B 1L0 Location: Near Dena General Store Tel (867) 390-2005 – Lands Location: Turn off Alaska Hwy, Tel (867) 969-2278 – Administration Fax (867) 390-2204 across from FasGas, follow signs Tel (867) 969-2832 – Economic Tel (867) 634-2288 – Administration Development Fax (867) 969-2405 Tetlit Gwich’in Council Tel (867) 634-4211 – Ren. Res. Mgr. Fax (867) 634-2108 Box 30 Little Salmon/Carmacks Fort MacPherson, NWT X0E 0J0 In Whitehorse: First Nation Location: On Tetlit Gwichin Road #100 – 304 Jarvis Street Tel (867) 952-2330 Whitehorse, YT Y1A 2H2 Box 135 Fax (867) 952-2212 Tel (867) 668-3627 Carmacks, YT Y0B 1C0 Fax (867) 667-6202 Location: Turn west off Klondike Hwy at north end of bridge to admin bldg Tr’ondëk Hwëch'in Inuvialuit Regional Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights
    M10_TELF6850_01_SE_C10.indd Page 185 22/04/14 7:24 PM user /206/PHC00138/9780132546850_PHC00138/PHC00138_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_CANADIAN_POLITIC ... Chapter 10 Aboriginal Rights Key Points n The rules of the game have always been different for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. n Aboriginal peoples constituted self-governing communities in North America before the arrival of Europeans, and they entered into treaty arrangements with the Crown in many parts of Canada, although not everywhere (particularly British Columbia). n Treaty arrangements with Aboriginal peoples were frequently ignored, and at Confederation Aboriginal peoples were subjected to a form of internal colonialism. n In light of important court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Canada recognized and affirmed Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act 1982. n But the governments of Canada have been reluctant to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with Aboriginal peoples, so it has fallen to the Supreme Court to define the scope and meaning of Aboriginal rights, including self-government. n The constitutional promises of 1982 are still not fulfilled, but it is clear that Aboriginal peoples constitute unique citizens in Canada. n While Aboriginal rights are now constitutionally protected, many Aboriginal communities are still mired in poverty. For many Canadians, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of the ­Constitution Act 1982, but Part II of the new constitution is potentially even more signifi- cant. Here we find, in one very brief section, the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights. Section 35 was an afterthought for Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, and it reads more like a promissory note than a plan for a new order of government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carcross/Tagish First Nation Final Agreement
    THE CARCROSS/TAGISH FIRST NATION FINAL AGREEMENT among THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, THE CARCROSS/TAGISH FIRST NATION and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE YUKON Published under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Ottawa, 2005 www.ainc-inac.gc.ca 1-800-567-9604 TTY only 1-866-553-0554 QS-5384-000-EE-A1 Catalogue: R2-427/1-2005E-PDF ISBN:0-662-42156-6 © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada Cette publication peut aussi être obtenue en français sous le titre: Entente définitive de la Première nation des Carcross/Tagish The preceding Elders' Statement does not form part of the Carcross/Tagish First Nation Final Agreement. AGREEMENT made this 22nd day of October, 2005. AMONG: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (hereinafter referred to as "Canada"); AND The Carcross/Tagish First Nation as represented by the Khà Shâde Héni of the Carcross/Tagish First Nation (hereinafter referred to as the "Carcross/Tagish First Nation"); AND The Government of the Yukon as represented by the Government Leader of the Yukon on behalf of the Yukon (hereinafter referred to as the "Yukon"), being the parties to this Carcross/Tagish First Nation Final Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "this Agreement"). WHEREAS: the Carcross/Tagish First Nation asserts aboriginal rights, titles and interests with respect to its Traditional Territory; the Carcross/Tagish First Nation wishes to retain, subject to this Agreement, the aboriginal rights, titles and
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Yukon Medevac Program in an Environment of Fiscal Restraint
    Medicine in Canada The evolution of the Yukon Medevac Program in an environment of fiscal restraint Valorie Lynn Cunningham, BSc, MD he Yukon Territory is a vast area of 483 350 km2 over which 32 000 inhabitants are scat- T tered; 24 000 of those reside in Whitehorse. Aside from a 4-bed cottage hospital in Watson Lake, the 52-bed Whitehorse General Hospital is the only other hospital in the Yukon Territory. The Whitehorse Gen- eral Hospital offers the services provided by general and family practitioners, a general surgeon, a pediatrician and an obstetrician-gynecologist. There are no resident radiologists, internists, cardiologists or orthopedic sur- geons in Whitehorse, and there are no CT-scan services. The referral centres for Whitehorse General Hospital are in Vancouver and Edmonton, approximately 2500 km away. The existing ground ambulance service can only pro- vide efficient services to communities within a 175-km ra- Flight nurse Rocky Hartley escorting the medevac of a patient dius of Whitehorse. It was impractical for other more dis- from Old Squaw Lodge in the Northwest Territories. tant communities to evacuate patients by ground ambulance. There was, therefore, a clear need for a pro- gram to provide air transport for emergent, urgent and Identifying the problem and current standard elective patients from distant Yukon communities to of care Whitehorse General Hospital (intraterritorial medevacs) and for critically ill patients from Whitehorse General In 1986 a government-funded third-party audit per- Hospital to Vancouver or Edmonton (extraterritorial formed by Price Waterhouse identified the inadequacies of medevacs). There was no formal program for these med- the Yukon medevac system and recommended that a pro- ical evacuations until 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act As a Means To
    Examining the Provisions of Section 87 of the Indian Act as a Means to Promote Economic Participation and Treaty Implementation by Myra J Tait A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF LAWS Faculty of Law University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2017 by Myra J Tait ii ABSTRACT Canadian courts, despite recognition in the Canadian Constitution, 1982 that treaties are to govern the Crown-Aboriginal relationship, continue to develop principles of interpretation that narrow Aboriginal and treaty rights, including the taxation provisions of the Indian Act. In Robertson, the Federal Court of Appeal, building on Mitchell v Peguis, articulated a “historic and purposive” analysis, by reliance on a distinctive culture test and an ascribed protection rationale, thereby abrogating the fundamental treaty relationship. As a means to fuller implementation of the spirit and intent of Treaties, taxation provisions must be interpreted in a treaty-compliant manner. The potential for economic participation through a proposed “urban reserve” on the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg, Manitoba, as part of a Treaty 1 settlement, is discussed as a case study, and compared with similar developments in New Zealand, under a Waitangi Tribunal settlement, as an example of treaty compliance in economic development. Key words: Indian Act s87; Economic development; Historic and purposive; Tax exemption; Numbered Treaties; Treaty interpretation; Treaty implementation; Urban reserves; Native Leasing Services, Kapyong; Waitangi Tribunal. iii Acknowledgements Ehara taku toa, he takitahi, he toa takitini—Success is not the work of one, but of many.
    [Show full text]
  • CHON-FM Whitehorse and Its Transmitters – Licence Renewal
    Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2015-278 PDF version Reference: 2015-153 Ottawa, 23 June 2015 Northern Native Broadcasting, Yukon Whitehorse, Yukon and various locations in British Columbia, Northwest Territories and Yukon Application 2014-0868-3, received 29 August 2014 CHON-FM Whitehorse and its transmitters – Licence renewal The Commission renews the broadcasting licence for the Type B Native radio station CHON-FM Whitehorse and its transmitters from 1 September 2015 to 31 August 2021. This shortened licence term will allow for an earlier review of the licensee’s compliance with the regulatory requirements. Introduction 1. Northern Native Broadcasting, Yukon filed an application to renew the broadcasting licence for the Type B Native radio station CHON-FM Whitehorse and its transmitters CHCK-FM Carmacks, CHHJ-FM Haines Junction, CHOL-FM Old Crow, CHON-FM-2 Takhini River Subdivision, CHON-FM-3 Johnson’s Crossing, CHPE-FM Pelly Crossing, CHTE-FM Teslin, VF2024 Klukshu, VF2027 Watson Lake, VF2028 Mayo, VF2035 Ross River, VF2038 Upper Liard, VF2039 Carcross, VF2049 Dawson City, VF2125 Takhini River Subdivision, VF2126 Keno City, VF2127 Stewart Crossing, VF2128 Tagish, VF2147 Destruction Bay, VF2148 Whitehorse (Mayo Road Subdivision), VF2311 Lower Post and VF2414 Faro, Yukon; VF2306 Atlin and VF2353 Good Hope Lake, British Columbia; VF2354 Aklavik, and VF2498 Tsiigehtchic (Arctic Red River), Northwest Territories, which expires on 31 August 2015. The Commission did not receive any interventions regarding this application. Non-compliance 2. Section 9(2) of the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations) requires licensees to file an annual return by 30 November of each year for the broadcast year ending the previous 31 August.
    [Show full text]
  • The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons LLM Theses Theses and Dissertations 2014 The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Wilfred Posluns Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Posluns, Michael Wilfred, "The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown" (2014). LLM Theses. 7. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/7 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. The Allocation of Burdens in Litigation Between First Nations and the Crown Michael Posluns A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAW GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL, YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO December 2013 © Michael Posluns, 2013 ABSTRACT This thesis is about two inter-related matters: first, the allocation of burdens of proof in litigation between First Nations and the Crown; and, secondly, the reaction or response of the Crown to the Court’s allocations of burdens, as evidenced in the subsequent cases. Since “burdens of proof” refers to matters of fact and evidence, I refer simply to “burdens”, emphasizing that, I mean all the burdens allocated by a Court and which the Court expects the parties to discharge in order for their case to succeed. My initial interest was in the response of the Crown to the allocation of burdens by the Court and related admonitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenge & Change
    Canada’s Justice Development Goals: 2020 challenge & change change challenge & This report was prepared by CALIBRATE. Design by Francesca Oprandi calibratesolutions.ca fraoprandi.com The JDGs JDG 1 P. 11 JDG 2 P. 15 JDG 3 P. 20 Address everyday Meet Make courts legal problems legal needs work better 1.1 Educate early 2.1 Focus on legal needs for 3.1 Ensure access to courts 1.2 Prevent everyone 3.2 Promote multi service centres 2.2 1.3 Offer a continuum of services Encourage innovation 3.3 Help people who are 2.3 1.4 Reflect Canadian society Expand scope of legal aid representing themselves 2.4 Focus on access to justice 3.4 Manage cases effectively 3.5 Be accessible and user-focused 3.6 Protect judicial independence JDG 4 P. 23 JDG 5 P. 27 JDG 6 P. 30 Improve Work Build family justice together capability 4.1 Offer a broad range of services 5.1 Establish coordinated efforts 6.1 Educate law students and 4.2 Promote consensual resolution 5.2 Include everyone legal professionals 6.2 4.3 Innovate 5.3 Be bold; Take action Expand justice education in schools 4.4 Restructure family courts 5.4 Work within institutions 5.5 Coordinate across Canada JDG 7 P. 33 JDG 8 P. 36 JDG 9 P. 42 Analyze Improve funding Innovate and learn strategies 7.1 Keep track of what is working 8.1 Develop metrics 9.1 Coordinate to spend 7.2 Share good ideas 8.2 Work with researchers in money well all fields 9.2 Better fund legal aid 9.3 Make sure the money lasts A Message from the Chair 2020 was an extraordinary year.
    [Show full text]
  • Village of Teslin Official Community Plan
    VILLAGE OF TESLIN OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN November 2009 Village of Teslin Official Community Plan Prepared by Té Khâ Planning and Development Brad Stoneman, Principal PO Box 286, Teslin, Yukon Territory Y0A 1B0 (867) 390-2733 with the assistance of Beverly Suderman, Principal Avril Orloff, Graphic Facilitator Michael E. Kelly, Principal Vancouver, BC ME Kelly Consulting http://avrilorloff.com/ [email protected] Duncan, British Columbia Damon Oriente Danica Rice Landscape Architect Valhalla Trails Ltd Vancouver, BC Cowichan Bay, British Columbia (604) 222-9200 www.valhallacontracting.com www.damonoriente.ca Acknowledgements The consultants would like to thank the participants in the focus groups and community meetings for their thoughtful and insightful input into the Official Community Plan review process. We could not have completed this Plan to your satisfaction without that support. The consultants would also like to thank Wes Wirth, former Chief Administrative Officer for the Village of Teslin, and all the staff for their unstinting time and efforts to make sure that we got our facts right. THANK YOU! GUNALCHÉESH ! Village of Teslin Official Community Plan Implementation Schedule Action Policy & Action Type of Action Time Frame Priority Reference Management/ (High, Medium, Advocacy Low) Encourage improvements to the Alaska Highway. 5.5.11.10 Advocacy 36 months High to 5.5.11.14 Ensure the primary water supply is fully in 5.5.10.11 Management 6 months High compliance with federal and territorial drinking water quality regulations. Develop a secondary water supply, to provide 5.5.10.12 Management 12 months High redundancy and ensure uninterrupted water for residents. Pursue detailed planning to upgrade the RecPlex and 5.5.12.1 Management 12 months High provide opportunities for the development of a youth 5.5.12.9 centre and seniors centre, or some combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Matters Across Canada, Visit Canada.Ca/Immigration-Matters
    Economic Profile Series: Whitehorse, Yukon Spring 2020 This series looks at communities across Canada and highlights key labour market statistics and the role that immigration has played, or could play, to help these communities flourish. It is important to note that predicting future labour market demand can be challenging as economies are always evolving. This -31101-2 profile uses current population and labour market trends to give a profile of how immigration might play a role in this community. 660 Ensuring Whitehorse remains an important urban centre in Northern Canada: the role of immigration The looming workforce challenge Figure 1: Share of the Whitehorse workforce1 over the The 2016 Census reported that nearly 30% of age of 55 in selected industries the Whitehorse workforce1 was over the age of Professional services 37% 55. Overall, more than 4,500 people are likely to retire in the next decade or so (as they are 55 Mining* 29% and older). Thirty-seven percent of those Heavy construction** 29% working in professional services was 55 and Transportation 28% older at the time of the Census (Figure 1). More than 1 out of every 4 workers in mining, Educational services 28% Cat. No. Cat. Ci4-193/18-2019E-PDF ISBN 978-0- construction, transportation, education, finance Finance and insurance 27% and insurance, and health care are over the age Health care 26% of 55. *Includes mining and quarrying (except oil and gas). There are not enough young people coming **Heavy and civil engineering construction. Source: Statistics Canada, 2016 Census. through the education system to meet the demand of the current labour market, let alone provide the workforce for potential future economic growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 | Court of Appeal for British Columbia I | Page
    ANNUAL REPORT Court of Appeal for British Columbia 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE BAUMAN 03 REGISTRAR’S REPORT 07 STATISTICS 22 PLANNING, PRIORITIES, AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMITTEE 28 RULES AND PRACTICE COMMITTEE 31 TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 35 EDUCATION COMMITTEE 37 JOINT COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 38 JUDICIAL ACCESS COMMITTEE 40 LAW CLERK COMMITTEE 41 LIBRARY COMMITTEE 42 MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL 45 CHANGES TO THE COURT’S COMPLEMENT 53 STAFF OF THE COURT OF APPEAL 56 APPENDIX 1 - CIVIL STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 57 APPENDIX 2 - CRIMINAL STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 58 APPENDIX 3 - COMBINED STATISTICS 2007 – 2019 Annual Report 2019 | Court of Appeal for British Columbia i | Page MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE BAUMAN The only constant in life is change, but courts are steeped in tradition. What is the value of ceremony, solemnity, advocacy, and independence when the legal problems British Columbians face are increasingly complex and the cost of legal services is already out of reach for many? Does tradition simply serve as an unhelpful anchor, preventing the court from navigating the seas of change? My answer is no. Rather than weighing the court down, these guiding principles, judicial independence being first among them, promote institutional resilience and allow the court to adapt to changing circumstances. At this point in our history, courts are grappling with questions of policy related to changes in social In a free and norms, new technology, demands for data transparency, and threats to privacy. Do courts need to democratic society, the respond to these changing conditions? Absolutely. In fact, courts and the advocates who work in them tradition of judicial must take a leadership role in mapping the way forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Pres Apr 13 2006.Pdf
    Whitehorse Prince George Edmonton Vancouver Calgary Guatemala www.firestoneventures.com Corporate Presentation, April, 2006 Profile: DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT TEAM Management has a track record of public company experience and project management: Lori Walton, P. Geol: President, CEO, Director Ken Powell: CFO, Director Pamela Strand, P. Geol: Director, President of Shear Minerals John Kowalchuk, P. Geol: Director Peter Aubry: Advisor Legal: Bryan & Company Audit: Stout & Company www.firestoneventures.com Zinc Price 5 yrs. Uranium Price 3 yrs. Source: kitcometals.com Source: Source: uxc.com Source: LME Zinc Warehouse Stocks 1 yr. Gold Price 5 yrs. Source: kitco.com Source: Source: kitcometals.com Source: www.firestoneventures.com Whitehorse EXPLORATION GOALS FOR 2006 ZINC Prince George Edmonton Complete drill program, mini bulk-sample and 43- Vancouver Calgary 101 compliant resource estimate. URANIUM Complete surface exploration, plan drill program, seeking joint venture partner Guatemala www.firestoneventures.com Whitehorse EXPLORATION GOALS FOR 2006 GOLD Prince George Edmonton Complete surface exploration and conduct drilling Vancouver Calgary on Sonora gold property, Yukon. Road building, drilling on Morris property, British Columbia. Guatemala www.firestoneventures.com Overview: STOCK INFORMATION Symbol: FV TSX-V Shares issued: 36.2 million Recent price: $0.68 52 week high/low: $0.105 to $0.82 Options: 2.5 million Warrants: 16.2 million Institutions: 23% www.firestoneventures.com Overview: OPTIONS & WARRANTS Security Number Exercise Price Expiry Date Stock options 700,000 $ 0.10 December 8, 2008 Stock options 575,000 $ 0.11 July 28, 2009 Stock options 75,000 $ 0.11 August 8, 2009 Stock options 550,000 $ 0.18 March 6, 2010 Stock options 575,000 $ 0.175 October 14, 2010 Warrants 2,180,983 $0.20 July 8, 2006 Warrants 228,700 $0.20 December 14, 2006 Warrants 150,000 $0.20 December 31, 2006 Warrants 757,641 $0.15 March 1, 2007 Warrants 292,833 $0.20 May 17, 2006 Warrants 1,991,994 $0.18 July 21, 2007 Warrants 200,000 $0.18 July 21, 2007 Warrants 926,832 $0.18 Aug.
    [Show full text]